Hi all.
The story as reported in Dinosaur News indicated that the skull in question as preserved has laterally directed orbits - presumably in contrast to other specimens which have at least some forward orientation to them (which is being attributed to the crushing of fossils rather than the original condition in the living animal.) This is supposed to help refute the "T.rex is a predator" hypothesis. Certainly having forward pointing eyes would be a useful attribute for a hunter, but nobody seems to be arguing that Allosaurus and other theropods which seem to lack forward facing orbits were not hunters. I wonder why these other critters get the benefit of the doubt that T. rex does not? Isn't the positing of an active- hunting lifestyle for these other theropods as much of an assumption as doing the same for T.rex is? Is it all just about those tiny little rex arms?
Persuing devil's advocacy a bit further, isn't it as as much of an assumption to take for granted that large theropod forelimbs were used for prey handling and capture? I'm not saying they weren't, but how could one prove that they were? There's always the Argument from Personal Incredulity which would state that "I can't imagine large hands on a theropod weren't used for prey capture and handling." Yet the same argument ("I can't imagine that those tiny little arms on T.rex could be used for etc...") is presented against active hunting in the case of T.rex.
P.S;Wasn't "Stan's" skull found completely disarticulated and undistorted? Are its orbits directed
forwardly or not?
Bruce.